conworldfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Rules of the OIS-PAFF War
1st Rule Eh... this is going to seem highly unrealistic if the Allied States is not part of this war. The AS is an observer of PAFF, but will still want (need, in RP terms) to take part in the war. If the Allied States doesn't take part, my plans for the government collapsing won't work out. Can you make an exception? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 18:44, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Sure. I edited it, too. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:56, August 22, 2010 (UTC) : Thank you very much! -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 18:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC) : GM, you can't discriminate on which borders to be invaded on, you can only discriminate certain areas you don't want invaded, such as if you had an "innocent" part of the country, in my case Arequipa which would be given back anyway depening on the 2011 election results, or Kamchatka which is a refuge for the innocent Republic of China. Otherwise, you can only prevent invasion if you want minimal participation in the war. I didn't say you could give yourself a freebie by trying to work your way out of letting your weak points be invaded, because everyone has weak points and it's not fair to everyone to give yourself a freebie. : Bear in mind that the rules protect you from being eliminated, so even if you are reduced to a city-state of only Berlin or something, you will be able to fight your way back. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 05:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC) : That's better as long as you don't make French Guiana into a gigantic military base or something like that. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 05:40, September 4, 2010 (UTC) The rules specify destruction and extermination of a user's nation. At no point can a user's country be so damaged that it is nearly nothing what it was (deployment of WMDs on multiple major cities or any major cities at all without permission of the user, the destruction of one's capitol or the extermination of citizens on a mass scale, all without permission of the user. Future World rules specify that territory captured during a war on either side must be surrendered back to its original owner at the end of the war unless otherwise agreed to by the nation's owner. Reducing FGC to a city-state of Berlin, either through extermination of cities and citizens or by capturing territory and keeping it is against the rules. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 02:31, September 14, 2010 (UTC) That's what the waiver is for. That's why it's called a waiver, you're waivering your rights. If you lose your territory, we can't have people taking back their territory without paying a fair price. In this way you can't have your territory back unless you pay a fair price, monetary or otherwise. The rule just says that at any point in the war, you might be reduced but you're always allowed to buy back old territory. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:43, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Well I specified my stance "at war's end, GTFO my territory". Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 02:50, September 14, 2010 (UTC) You can't waiver out of the waiver... You will get your territory back but how is up to the person who has it. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of No. Future World rules are universal. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 03:03, September 14, 2010 (UTC) True. However, the rules say that if you have someone else's permission, you can take other people's territory under the given conditions. Everyone who signed the treaty has given permission for their territory to be taken in such a way. It's a lot like RW. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC) And I directly restricted you from keeping my territory. Follow FW rules or GTFO. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 03:07, September 14, 2010 (UTC Then don't participate in the war if you don't want to be responsible for your territory. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:09, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Don't interfere with my responses during the war. I have plans and don't get involved in them. As a player, I can do whatever I want with my own country and do whatever I want to blanks. You are directly disobeying Future World rules. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 03:13, September 14, 2010 (UTC) What do you mean? None of the players on the OIS side permit you to invade their territory without signing the waiver first. The rules clearly state you can't invade others' territory without permission. Do you not understand how a waiver works in real life? You have two choices: 1) Sign the waiver and thus get full permission from OIS to invade their territory or declare war against them 2) Do not sign the waiver and have no invasion rights but retaining Future World rights —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:16, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Like I said, I can do whatever I want to blanks. I have no interest in attacking EAF, want nothing to do with Yarphei and SCOSK and Odran are not threats. OIS = Yarphei, EAF, SCOSK, Odran? & Cantonese Republic. You control none of the blanks just as much as I don't control any PAFF blanks. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 03:20, September 14, 2010 (UTC) You can do what you want to blanks. I never said you couldn't. But you can't ally explicitly with the PAFF members who signed without signing the waiver. You can still attack blanks all you want. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:25, September 14, 2010 (UTC) I can ally with whoever I want. Additionally, Future World rules state, I have the right to counter attack in my allies' territory, which means I can defend them if they want or need me to. You wanted that rule added. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 03:39, September 14, 2010 (UTC) I meant you can't like form a super-tight bond because you're technically on a side war which means no participation in the actual war. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:51, September 14, 2010 (UTC) No, actually, because of your beloved counter attack rule, should you invade my great Soviet ally, Everett can jump in and help them fight you off. The only restriction (set in that very rule), states I cannot attack your homeland. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 04:26, September 14, 2010 (UTC) . I am just adding to my waiver, that you may still attack the ASA where ever, and when ever, even destroy it. However, at some point or another (after the war), I can have my country back through IC ways, but you must allow me that OOCly. Also, can you please add: "No powergaming" to the rules please, it needs to be in there. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 14:24, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Thoughts on the War On second thought, all i want is the right to pursue belgium as part of my territory. thats my only reason for joining in the war. i would be far more interested in pursuing the pashtun war as opposed to the PAFF-OIS War. its too big and cumbersome to write. thats probably the reason it hasnt started yet. i recommend the wars you were planning be cut up into a lot of smaller ones. that way, we can start focusing on one thing at a time. in regard to belgium, i would be willing to negotiate a treaty instead of needing a huge freaking world war to gain that territory. its not in my nation's best interests. Gatemonger 14:28, September 14, 2010 (UTC) We tried a treaty, but you all walked out, m'kay? So why would a treaty work now? A peace and conditions trreaty would be nice, and would meet the mission objectives for OIS, but the opposition is uninterested. It would only be fair and forthright for us to walk out on any treaty for Belgium you propose, as such. So since, peace clearly is in no one's mindset, the show must go on. Woogers - talk ( ) 15:16, September 14, 2010 (UTC) The Allies (us :D) gave demands... we want OIS to BAN Yarpei out of the alliance, and for Trahn to step down. Those are fair conditions for the circumstances. I am going to send another ultimatum to Trahn ICly, which will be like the ONLY way to stop this war. Also, I agree with Gatemonger, lets split this into sections like we did with the 2010 Yarphese War. I would want DK to create the first article (ie. Yarphei's first move), or the Allied States. Because quite frankly, these two nations are going to be the main players. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 15:43, September 14, 2010 (UTC) :Sounds like you'll be in for a shock when the war starts lol muhahahaha. Oh, and your demands are baseless and unreasonable, so pretty much the big NO. Sectionalizing the war will make the war lose its focus. The focus of the war CAN NOT BE LOST. It is the most critical of points for the Organization of Independent States to make. Woogers - talk ( ) 15:55, September 14, 2010 (UTC) How the hell are the demands baseless? Yarphei is worse than Al-Qaeda. They attacked the Allied States after being asked for help by fascists. They kill civilians using the weather. Trahn has more than once shown that he cannot be the leader of a country... at all. OIS is just being dragged into this unnecessarily because of Yarphei's mistakes. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 16:01, September 14, 2010 (UTC) :SHut the Vietbamese noodle up. It was because you aske me to. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 23:48, September 14, 2010 (UTC) :What? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 14:39, September 15, 2010 (UTC) Just because they hold a different set of ideals of what is right and what is wrong than you doesn't mean that they're evil. Deep down, fascists are just ultra-nationalists with violent tendencies, so they have the right and patriotic mindset, just the wrong way of achieving their goal of a unified and strong nation (they probably don't think so, but I do). Anyone who has leadership skills can lead, lol, he definitely succeeded in taking enough land to make a soverign nation. And one man's mistake is another man's greatest success hehehe. Woogers - talk ( ) 16:17, September 14, 2010 (UTC) To me, that is like saying terrorists also have justification for what they do. Trahn can be convicted for crimes against humanity along with so many of his generals. The fact of the matter is, the demands DO HAVE BASE! Yarphei attacked a neutral country (we became neutral when he helped with Zim) without reason. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 16:41, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Terrorists sure think they're justified in what they do. Whether or not we agree is a different story. Crimes against humanity are relative. Whether or not the demands have base is also relative. Neutral to you could be hostile to them. Woogers - talk ( ) 16:56, September 14, 2010 (UTC) :Alright. We just need to stop *ucking around with this peace, because in a realistic environment, Yarphei and the Allied States would have completely destroyed each other by now. So let the works begin! -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 17:27, September 14, 2010 (UTC) In a realistic environment, allies on both sides would have stopped opposition from destroying their allies. And wait. Hostilities will commence in due time. Woogers - talk ( ) 17:34, September 14, 2010 (UTC) i wanted peace, as my rep expressed, but he said that he was ready for war if need arose. no offense, SW, but ASA was the main one pushing for war. FGC doesnt have the might to push single handedly for peace. thet's everett that can do that. Gatemonger 01:14, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::No offence taken. Countries retaliate when attacked (especially when a city has been nuked). This is what the ASA is trying to do. Pure and simple: "If Trahn doesn't step down WITH his sadist generals, and OIS doesn't kick Yarphei out of the alliance, there will be war." ::What do you mean that Everett can single handedly push for peace? With no offence meant to UP, Everett can still be won in a variety of ways. I just want to eliminate any confusion in that regard. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 14:37, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::What do you mean by "Everett can still be won in a variety of ways"? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 14:35, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Are you saying it is impossible for any country currently in Future World to win a war against Everett? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 14:37, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::It depends on the scenario. An invasion of the Everetti homeland is an immediate death trap and no country on Earth has the capability of succeeding at an invasion of Everetti soil. Much like the IRL United States would be the dumbest thing to try to invade. No country on Earth has a capability of succeeding in invasion and technically no nation has the ability to invade the United States due to one issue or another. China has troop count but no Navy to deploy them. Russia is too poor to take on the US and its navy is a joke. Everett is similar in the fact that it has a series of defensive systems that would totally FUBAR an attempted invasion by sea and currently no country in North America has the capability of succeeding in ground invasion against Everett and that's solely due to troop count, training, technology, defensive systems and specialized offensive systems (should they be needed in an emergency) (none of this scenario involves the use of WMDs on either side, use of WMDs ensures the eradication of the enemy entirely should WMDs be used against Everett). If the battle is entirely based in foreign soil and not Everetti homeland, there is a significant number of defensive and offensive systems that either are unavailable or not able or allowed to be used therefore chances of success in a major power vs power war could be far less. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 14:48, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Basically, every other country in Future World combined would be required to take on Everett and win, because of their defense policies and militarism of its citizens. Woogers - talk ( ) 14:52, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::The HDS personnel are not as heavily trained as soldiers but the problem is that they are not soldiers. They are civilians defending their homes, neighborhoods and businesses from invading enemies (generally anyone that would want to invade Everett is a nation of evil and would more than likely commit crimes and violence agaisnt civilians anyway) so killing civilians is a war crime, especially ones trying to protect their families from invasive forces, so you face about 35,000,000 pissed off insurgent civilians and over a dozen state-sponsored militant groups (Registered Militias) and several autonomous native American tribal militia groups. The killing of civilians automatically causes Everett to respond with equal force (ie: deploying against the enemy homeland with the intent to cause tremendous loss of life and infrastructure). Killing HDS personnel is therefore not recommended as it only sparks a massive response.Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 15:03, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :::Here's an example of HDS response to an invasion should the coastal systems fail and first line of defense sea based systems and weapons fail and enemy troops land on the shore: HDS personnel are already warned about a day in advance that a large number of enemy vessels are in the region. Immediately the emergency broadcast system goes off and HDS personnel are alerted to potential invasion. Everything switches to Code RED Alert 1 and DEFCON 1. Should the coastal defense fail and enemy vessels actually land on shore, they will be faced with direct military forces from the Marines. Should they be over powered and enemy forces enter a city for example, the most notable thing will be armed civilian blockades, checkpoints and armed citizens may be visible in the streets. HDS are taught to avoid direct conflict unless necessary. So think of them as bees or wasps. All it takes is an enemy tank to run over some dude's Mercedes and the whole neighborhood will erupt in insurgent gunfire against the enemy forces. HDS takes destruction of civilian property, injury, deaths or even the running down of a family dog an act of war against the civilian populus and they will defend themselves violently. Because enemies like Yarphei (Yarphei is the only enemy of Everett capable of deploying troops) are totally stupid, they would open fire on civilians and start killing them all, a direct war crime. Once it's heard that the enemy is killing civvies, HDS and the militias go into high gear as well as the entirety of the Everetti military and basically a policy of "no-prisoners, no-remorse" takes into effect and the enemy will literally be treated with no regard for human life and killed regardless of surrender or injury. Like wasps, they all fall in and become bent of taking down the threat. Before you know it, you have IEDs in the streets, enemy soldiers being executed, AZVs all over the place and then it's just a very hardcore version of the IRL Iraq War. With the enemy unable to even survive in metro areas full of enrage civilians and no choice to either mass murder civilians or retreat, the enemy is taken down quickly within the first 24 hours of the land invasion. Even humans as a basic race have a set of morals and unless Yarphei (being the only country capable of attempting such an invasion) are like WWII Nazis and have no regard for civilians, most enemy soldiers will stand down and retreat regardless of orders. So should defenses fail, it's still a massive demoralizing mess for the invading enemy and retreat and defeat is the only option. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 15:26, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd wager the Allied States, FGC, and maybe one other country can easily take Everett, merely using the art of misleading. ASA and Everett are allies, Everetti forces will be deployed during a war, this can be a good time for the ASA to invade the south. Now if it were to come to that, I think in an RL environment, the Allied States would take the southern half of Everett in a few days/weeks, then work upwards with the two other countries. The fact of the matter is, if Everett (or RL USA) is not prepared, or anticipating an attack, it won't be able to really defend itself. For example, it would take at least the entire first day of the invasion (the most important day with the most momentum) for either the US or Everett to find out who is actually attacking them. The reaction will also be slower, because nobody expected it at all. ::I am just saying if any country has the right momentum, it can invade and ultimately destroy almost any other country. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 16:45, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::What kind of country deploys its entire military capacity overseas? Secondly, the ASA would be hit by a specialized defense system which may or may not be used during this next war against certain enemies. Additionally, you completely ignored the HDS. One wrong move by ASA forces, even a single civilian killed could set off a firestorm of 35,000,000 insurgents that will turn Everett into the largest insurgency deathtrap. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 16:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::I've read about the HDS and I seriously think very few AMERICAN civilians will go up against an invading AMERICAN force. Every country has a vulnerability, and unfortunately, every country has that of not being prepared. Nobody in Everett will for example now think that the Allied States would invade it, so they will at first be like "WTF is this we don't even..." for about a day, then when most southern states are lost, they will begin to react. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 18:07, September 15, 2010 (UTC) No actually you are ignoring several common sense problems your forces will face. 1) Satellite and PSF monitoring will know you are building forces along the border regions and Everett will go on alert. We may be allies but Everett keeps a close eye on you. 2)Border patrol agents will see you and that includes your forces being spotted by INS aerial drones. 3) Every moron with a cellphone camera is automatically a CNN iReporter. The moment tanks start rolling through neighborhoods marked with ASA insignia, it will be global news within the hour. Welcome to the information age. 4) HDS automatically would be suspicious of ASA forces running around Everetti soil. 5) Local PD and federal agencies would be very aware you don't belong there. As stated earlier, within the hour you will have PDS raining down on you and air force all over your ass. 6) As stated earlier, what kind of country deploys its entire military capacity overseas. Everett would never send everything they have and leave the nation undefended. You seem to think that Everett is stupid. 7) HDS. 8) 1.25 million Everetti Marines... lets even give you a chance and say I do have some deployed, 750,000 Everetti Marines in the homeland, compared to the full ASA Army and National Guard added with the full ASA Marine Corp is far outnumbered and out-skilled. Weekend soldiers and Army has nothing over Marines and your Marine numbers are far below Everett's. 9) H...D...S... Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:20, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :BTW, they aren't AMERICAN civilians. They are EVERETTI now. And patriotism and military recruitment is at an all time high since Yarphei started acting out. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:23, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :: *Sigh* 1) The Allied States won't be so obvious as to be opening tank factories along the AS-Everetti border. 2) True, however, I highly doubt the agents and drones are monitoring every square inch 24/7. Plus, confusion will still be high on the Everetti side. 3) Thing with that is, BLITZKRIEG! The main objective will be to seize most capital cities, starting with Kansas City, MI. 4) Indeed, however, AS Military forces are far more experienced than a bunch of civilian defenders. 5) Law enforcement agencies are not really a threat to a military organization. 6) In times of war (WW III) very large portions of your military will be broad, plus, Everett feels safe, bordered by allies in all directions. 7) Already mentioned. 8) That is true, but like I said, the main op will be to seize the capital cities, ultimately giving us the upper hand (being in such small spaces between civilians). 9) Yes yes. :::LOL. 1) Kansas City isn't the capital of Missouri, Jefferson City is. 2) Abbreviation of Missouri is MO. 3) Missouri is in the United States. 4) Never underestimate the power of Black people with guns, when the community is threatened by something other than themselves. 5) You'd be surprised how many war vets are in Police Departments. 6) Seizing capital cities will be hard if you don't know what they are. Woogers - talk ( ) 18:51, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::::My knowledge of the United States is limited, all I know is that Kansas City is the closest city of a foreign nation to the AS, and I thought it was in EV. I don't know OOCly, but my generals and shiz being Americans will know -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:13, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :: I am not trying to get into an argument, I am just now getting sick of the powergaming. Not -every- citizen in the UoE can be a highly trained killing machine going Carl Johnson on enemies. Your border patrol cannot be everywhere at the same time. They will still be confused, contacting the AS side first to confirm wtf is going on. Everetti satellites will go boom along with other forms of communication. It is also rather obvious that the Allied States will attempt to kidnap several officials beforehand. Btw, Everetti or American, they will still have the brotherly feeling towards each other. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 18:47, September 15, 2010 (UTC) It's not powergaming when I'm pointing my stated defenses that I have all over my articles. You think Everett is full of retards and you severely underestimate my capabilities. You're young and you don't live in the United States, so you don't possess half the tactical and warfare knowledge out there and the capabilities of the United States IRL or Everett in FW. And I can't stress enough the simple fact that "Everett is not full of retards." Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:02, September 15, 2010 (UTC) I would appreciate it if my RL nationality and age be kept out of the debate. I have sufficient knowledge to know that every country has a breaking point. "Your capabilities?" That is metagaming and mixing OOC and IC. You also seem to think that the Allied States can't even invade and beat a microstate. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:13, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :Speaking of CNN iReporting, I was there live when someone fell through a window at Fenty Campaign Headquarters while waiting for election results. Woogers - talk ( ) 18:28, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :I would also like to point out, Everett would be very vulnerable at one future date: Spenser's inevitable passing, and the handover of power. This is a crucial point in its history that Everett will need to be prepared for. A relatively large anmount of governmental power is in the Everetti presidency, and during the brief period that that power is lacking, if someone were plotting an invasion of Everett, that would be the perfect time to do so. Unless Spenser somehow knows when she is going to die and has some political successor elected in advance, then this would potentially unravel the whole governmental system. Gatemonger 17:17, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :The election system is being reworked later in the future. Possible elections by 2020 and then every ten years after that with unlimited numbers of terms allowed to be served. Generally the President would retire should he or she be of that age anyway and should the President die of age or other means, the Vice President (Secretary of Defense) takes Presidency. Should he or she die too, the next in line is the Secretary of State, followed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, followed by the Secretary of Justice and so on. There is no unstable period of time in which Everett is vulnerable unless the entire federal government is somehow exterminated but a state by state determination is also in place with the Governor of the State of New York being the next of kin. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:26, September 15, 2010 (UTC) Everett wanted peace but OIS and Yarphei decided to run their mouths. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 02:15, September 15, 2010 (UTC) What talking about? EAF initiated peace conference and both Yarphei and SCOSK stated opinions on peace. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 05:09, September 15, 2010 (UTC) "I will not tolerate this immature behaviour. What Belgio-Yarphei wants is neither war nor peace, but harmony between the East and the West. Your vision of the war can only be justified by the Western principles the Vietnamese Liberation Army chose to escape from. " This absurdity is what pissed off Everett and everyone else. The comment contains nothing but contradiction, hypocrisy and lies. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 08:02, September 15, 2010 (UTC) Because I KNOW you are going to argue with me over this one, I will point it out for you: *"I will not tolerate this immature behaviour." Yarphei has been the only country acting immature since the beginning. *"What Belgio-Yarphei wants is neither war nor peace, but harmony between the East and the West." Blatant lie. Yarphei has no other interest in anything other than violence, war and mass murder based on its REPEATED acts of war aggression against multiple sovereign nations, one in support of a terrorist organization. In response to losing the conflict, Yarphei NUKED CIVILIANS. *"Your vision of the war can only be justified by the Western principles the Vietnamese Liberation Army chose to escape from." If western principles that Yarphei does not believe in include: Do NOT kill civilians. Do NOT commit genocide. Do NOT violate human rights and Do NOT wage wars of aggression, then Yarphei's visions are twisted and evil. Yarphei's acts included the illegal invasion of the Falkland Islands (British sovereign territory), illegal invasion of Wales, killing civilians and using weather weapons, in addition to using weather weapons of mass destruction with the intent of killing and displacing tens of millions of innocent civilians while at the same time killing dozens in nations not involved in the war, illegal invasion of the Allied States (in support of a terrorist organization that had just mass murdered hundreds in a bombing) followed by multiple acts of illegal war crimes against civilians during that war (bombing hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, killing thousands and the nuking of Witchita, a solely civilian target), illegal invasion of the USSR, claiming vast areas of land to create a so-called "buffer zone" (with the stated goal of attempting to PREVENT war, thinking that invading a country and occupying land would in fact spark war) and now the planned mission of invading the USSR (for who knows what possible reason), sparking a third world war, all in the so-called name of "PREVENTING WAR" and "stopping western interference in the east", (again not thinking straight that invading countries actually sparks war and only makes the east look even worse, degrading relations and your reputation further) and then after all of that ridiculous crap, having the nerve at a peace conference to say "I will not tolerate this immature behaviour. What Belgio-Yarphei wants is neither war nor peace, but harmony between the East and the West. Your vision of the war can only be justified by the Western principles the Vietnamese Liberation Army chose to escape from." Thank you and goodnight. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 08:26, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :Well UP, that is all IC... Yarphei's rep' probably rehearsed those lines over and over. His family was probably being kept hostage as well. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 12:45, September 15, 2010 (UTC) Yea, that was IC but the same shit applies OOC. I don't know if DK is deliberately (purposely) roleplaying his Yarphese characters to be so blatantly stupid, arrogant, horrible in speech and argument skills and straight up annoying, hopefully he is and Yarphei is meant to be fully of morons, because the mentality displayed in Yarphei and by its officials and leaders is scary. I would say in all reality, Tranh Chupyar has the same intelligence as Kim Jong Il, (totally fking stupid yet intelligent enough to gain control of so many people) or Mahmoud Amednjedihad (also totally fking stupid yet intelligent enough to maintain control of a nation). Yarphei has the same diplomatic skill as the IRL Iranian leadership (which means none) but instead of making an all out ass of himself to the world like Amednjehad does, Yarphei tries to be smart about it by using sneaky words and phrases to seem smart but really is absolutely full of fail. Either way, in the end, they both end up failing at life except Yarphei doesn't come off as completely mentally deficient, it just seems like an arrogant douchebag. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 14:23, September 15, 2010 (UTC) This conversation is now the most unorganized thread on the wiki. Woogers - talk ( ) 19:16, September 15, 2010 (UTC) War mechanics Sorry, but I have to ask simple things in the midst of these "deep" discussions that you have. How the war mechanics is roleplayed here in FW? Thanks.BIPU 21:25, September 15, 2010 (UTC)